Now, if there is no evidence around God, then Atheism is rational from a scientific view, for the same reasons why I don't bow down to Odin, or ask Athena for wisdom for me to make this post.

Theists could get 'lucky' or have God come down and prove his arse, and get some followers. Theism could be validated that way, at least for them.

So thoughts?

They can't both be true in the same respect and at the same time.

"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."

"God" is a human conception about a reality that none of us knows fully or with certitude. So that both atheism and theism are basically just opinions relative to the human idea of "God". And in this way, they are of equal validity. In fact I often feel as if I am both an atheist and a theist at the same time. And I suspect a lot of other people do, too. The human intellect is not one-dimentional. We are capable of thinking and feeling more than one thing at one time, and those thoughts and feelings can sometimes oppose each other, simultaneously.

No. In our universe, atheism and theism are both invalid ideologies. Both make claims that will most likely never be confirmed. The very definition of "valid," means "having a sound basis in logic or fact." Considering that both atheism and theism contradict each other, their paradoxical nature restricts them from logic. Perhaps the only answer is Null, in that God both exists but doesn't exist, infinitely. Maybe God is/isn't an infinite number of contradictions existing within an infinite amount of space? Perhaps the very existence of these paradoxes is the answer that we've been looking for all along? Or perhaps this is all just philosophical meandering. Either way, my brain just exploded.

"By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher." - Socrates

Now, if there is no evidence around God, then Atheism is rational from a scientific view, for the same reasons why I don't bow down to Odin, or ask Athena for wisdom for me to make this post.

Theists could get 'lucky' or have God come down and prove his arse, and get some followers. Theism could be validated that way, at least for them.

So thoughts?

I think this is another way of saying: 'we don't know'. However, what seems most likely to you: an entity that seemingly defies what is possible, or lack of one? Sure, it's possible that the former exists, but that's no reason to have faith in one.

"That's what people do. They breed, and then their children breed, and then their children do it, and their children do it. But, have you ever asked why we do it?" - Jim 'Metamorphhh' Crawford

"There is no doubt that life is given us, not to be enjoyed, but to be overcome; to be got over." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"It's like building a broken building, repairing it and then saying that now I have value in doing so...but it didn't need to be broken in the first place." -Gary 'Inmendham' Mosher

Atheism and Theism are both valid. The definition of God is so ambiguous, though when defined clearly is still broad.

The Theist believes in God. But what is God?

The Pantheist says God is the Universe.The Theist says God is a divine being who is omnipresent.The Atheist believes in the Universe. Dawkins himself admitted to having a "religious reverence toward nature."

None of them believe in the "man in the sky" despite Atheist caricatures of Theism.

If God is an immaterial being and also omnipresent, then God is hardly distinguishable from the Universe itself.

They all believe in the same thing, it just depends on how many human characteristics they are willing to perceive in the Universal force.